Jones often responds to Letters to the Editor, and the September 2017 issue was no exception, with Jones volunteering that “It is clear that the Jews are orchestrating Muslim migration to destroy European Christian culture.” Yes, Jones has read Kevin MacDonald and is familiar with this and other Culture of Critique theses.

In this issue, Jones concludes his thoughts on Meyer Lansky and ballet, but the topic now becomes homosexuality. Jones notes that even in 1970, “anywhere from 95 to 99 percent of APA [American Psychiatric Association] members believed that homosexuality was pathological.” Well, guess what: by 1973 a cabal of Jews succeeded in removing homosexuality from the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Fully in line with his thesis about the revolutionary Jewish spirit, Jones here discusses a “small cabal of revolutionaries,” a “small band of very bright men and women,” who “swindled” the APA into accepting their degenerate definition of homosexuality. In research that few others could achieve, Jones exposes a wide range of actors, from psychiatrists, “liberal-minded easterners,” gay activists, a gay grandfather and his granddaughter.” Jones then asks what this diverse group of activists had in common: “The answer is that they were all Jews.” And the granddaughter who wrote about this failed to mention this fact “because she is Jewish, too.”

This is quintessential E. Michael Jones.

The October issue introduces us to a valuable YouTube site that covers the thesis of Jones’ book The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. Called “The Goy Guide to World History,” it may provide access to Jones’ own revolutionary thought for those who are less than fond of reading.

This issue also gives us the cover essay, “The Rise and Fall of the New Atheism,” in which Jones critiques the arguments of the atheist “Gang of Four” that made big headlines in the beginning of this new century. The four are Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. The topic under discussion certainly deserves a review of its own, so I will ignore it here after adding a few observations.

For instance, did readers know that Christopher Hitchens’ mother died an unnatural death? Jones claims that the mother committed adultery and was subsequently murdered by her lover, who then took his own life, but after a Google search I found a YouTube video where Hitchens himself claims both parties had voluntarily taken drugs, washed down with alcohol, to end their lives.

More importantly, in this essay Jones questions the theory of Darwinian evolution:

Anyone who pleads the case for the existence of God must now go before the court which goes by the name of “Science,” in front of a judge whose legal theory is determined by Darwin’s view of evolution. Atheism became the state religion of the Anglophone world, because Darwin, the prophet of the God who does not exist, “enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world.”

Again, the essay in the October issue deserves its own review, but what really causes me to slight it here is a long response Jones wrote in the Letters to the Editor section, where he proffers his read on the events in Charlottesville last summer. One Zoltan Radvansky wrote to express his exasperation at Whites’ inaction to the Muslim invasion of Europe, White genocide in South Africa, etc., and he blames the Jews:

Finally, even the “nicest” Jews never, and I mean never condemn the main pillars of Zionist policies: multiculturalism, feminism, supporting uncontrolled migration, usury, diversity and mindless tolerance, Jewish-controlled prostitution, drug commerce and gambling, profit maximization, gay/lesbian marriage, globalization, brainwashing our youth with the media owned by their compatriots, promoting atheism and materialism among us, colonization, continuous warfare abroad, the militarization of police forces, communism, the genocide of whites in Zimbabwe and South Africa just to name a few, all of which are geared towards exterminating us as a race and as diverse nations and cultures.

Jones responded, “If recent events in Charlottesville provided nothing else, they showed the futility of mounting a racial response to the crisis we are now facing.” This street-wise Philadelphia boy correctly understands how “that city’s Jewish mayor and Black deputy mayor in an ADL-managed, Soros-funded resurrection of the Black-Jewish alliance” set the trap by allowing Whites to legally gather for a protest, then had police herd these non-violent Whites “into the arms of the illegal Antifa demonstrators.” Jones argues that the SPLC and ADL already had a media barrage prepared, and the protesting Whites were naive to have appeared in Charlottesville at all.

While that last part is debatable, I think Jones is right on the money when he claims that the above parties had planned to use this demonstration to create a moral panic which then justified the introduction of Internet censorship. Jones then makes a stunning connection to Adolf Hitler to support Jones’ belief that “Ethnos Needs Logos.” (This theme is taken from Jones’ e-book Ethnos Needs Logos: Why I Spent Three Days in Guadalajara Trying to Persuade David Duke to Become a Catholic. Yet more proof that only E. Michael Jones could come up with a title like that.)

To make a long story short, Jones writes in this response that “Hitler was forced by the logic of history to concede that Christianity, not blood, created the German nation.” Jones concludes, “Logos ‘exalts and maintains’ ethnos. It doesn’t destroy it.” I suspect we will hear far more on this theme from Jones in the future, for as it becomes apparent even to “normies” that the game plan is to destroy the White race, a reaction far greater than the current growth of the Alt Right is in store.

Toward that end, I think Jones is going to have to move closer to accepting the concept of race. If he is using “ethnos” as a proxy for “race,” perhaps sites like TOO can encourage him to give more weight to race, though I can understand his reluctance, given that his son married a Hispanic woman, which Jones discussed in the October 2005 issue under “My Big Fat Hispanic Wedding: Spanish, WASP, Jewish and Catholic California.” Still, as the science behind race realism has shown, race can clearly be shown to be a physical concept, with modern genetics greatly enhancing our understanding. It is difficult to see how an ideology based on a universalistic logos can be used to motivate Whites against the non-White invasion of the West. Thus, I have a strong hunch that Jones’ best contributions could come by working on a combination like “race and Logos.”

I thought the February issue, “Catholic/Jewish Dialogue: Fifteen Years of Giving the Church the Finger,” would take the cake for most creative/outrageous cover story, but I think Jones topped it with the November 2017 issue, which features a photo of lesbian Roxane Gay.

And what title does he give about the woman in the photo? “The Fat Lady Sings: Feminism, Obesity, and Catholic Education.” Priceless!

Roxane Gay

Jones early on in this cover essay addresses a group of Catholic university presidents, writing, “Of that group no one weighed in heavier than Patricia Maguire, president of Trinity Washington University. No one epitomized the bloated state of Catholic higher education better than Maguire because Maguire is — I want to be as tactful as possible here — morbidly obese. Her struggle to reach the podium after leaving her seat 15 feet away was painful to watch.”

Jones is acid in his consideration of feminism and obesity, writing of the former that “Feminism is another word for the social engineering of women into sexual robots, docile consumers, and wage slaves. Because this is an enormous task, the social engineers who control the regime must delegate this task to subcontractors, and no subcontractor has proved more docile and supine in carrying out the commands of their superiors than Catholic educators in general and the administrators of feminist Catholic higher education in particular.”

Further, Jones writes, “Feminism makes women stupid.” He then cites a British feminist who recently claimed that “the current world-wide obesity crisis was fueled by feminism.” In other words, “Cooking skills can get lost that quickly, and when they do dire circumstances follow. The ‘unintended consequence’ of women’s liberation was obesity.”

Next, Jones decides to get really provocative, tying all of this to the subject of lesbianism. The National Institute of Health, it turns out, had claimed that “75 percent of all lesbians were obese,” and, obligingly, Jones provides the perfect photo:

Having written the book Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation & Political Control( 2000), Jones knows a thing or two about appetites, so he quickly zeroes in on the answer: “Lesbianism is either an extreme form of feminism or its hidden grammar, but the hidden grammar of both lesbianism and feminism is: Say yes to appetite. That is why feminism is a form of political control, and that is why lesbians are fat.”

How fat, one may wonder. Roxane Gay, who wrote about her life in the book Hunger, once weighed in at an astonishing 577 pounds, but now, Jones surmises, “has slimmed down to a relatively svelte 350 pounds.” Why do we even know about this obese Black lesbian, anyway? Jones tells us it is because “This the the sort of narrative that makes the hearts of Jewish feminists in places like the newsroom at National Public Radio skip a beat, which may be why Terry Gross ended up interviewing Gay on her show Fresh Air.” Jones knows his stuff.

Finally, we come to last December’s issue, which, not surprisingly, has a big photo of Harvey Weinstein and Kate Winslet on the cover. Does anyone want to venture a guess for the title? The first, more interesting, part is “Who Shtupped the Shiksa?” I wrote about this scandal in two parts (here and here), and Jones’ account is similar to my own, so I don’t feel the need to summarize it now. One new aspect that Jones adds, however, has to do with the contention that a problem in Hollywood that is larger than sexual harassment is pedophilia. Perhaps an account of that will emerge eventually from Dr. Jones’ pen.

So there we have one year of this amazing writing. I believe I have made the case here and in previous essays that Jones’ writing is well worth our time, for it is unlike other writing due to its diverse topics and the acrobatic connections made between and among them.

I say go back and try to get as much material from Jones’ Fidelity Press as you can. Subscribe to Culture Wars, which is inexpensive in its PDF format or as a hardcopy. At the website, you can easily find handy e-Books of past cover stories. Some of my favorite titles are:

Lejzor and Fiszel Sing the Blues: Chess Records and the Black-Jewish Alliance

Niggas in Denial: Pimping the System and The System of Pimping

I have written four essays on E. Michael Jones’ work because I’m convinced he is a modern American intellectual treasure. In large part this is because he has the courage and insight to write on the Jewish Question, the preeminent issue of our day. People read The Occidental Observer because they understand this. So I hope our readers will also become avid readers of Dr. Jones as well. What he has to say is worthy of our attention.

Dr Jones podcasts with Peter Helland on YouTube are a fantastic resource, there are about two per month. Prof. Mc D and Dr Joyce have each eschewed Jones work for different reasons. Yes, his universalism is a problem but once you get past it, as the curate said, his attention to the particular is exceedingly good. The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit is an essential companion volume to the Culture of Critique.

Further, Jones writes, “Feminism makes women stupid.” He then cites a British feminist who recently claimed that “the current world-wide obesity crisis was fueled by feminism.” In other words, “Cooking skills can get lost that quickly, and when they do dire circumstances follow. The ‘unintended consequence’ of women’s liberation was obesity.”

That feminist was dishonest to take credit for women getting real fat in recent years. In the first place, there’s just as many fat men. Second, the urge to eat large amounts of unsuitable food is not the basic cause of the never-before-seen-in-such-numbers, bizarrely huge, shapeless forms we see so much of. It’s the other way around: hormonal disturbance associated with a purely physical toxic environment cause cravings you will kill for. Nothing to do with loss of cooking skills.

When your body chemistry is seriously f****d, you cannnot help it that you want to eat junk. And lots of it. The justifications and emotional manifestations come later. After all is said & done, we are still biological beings, not designed to receive baby formula, dozens of vaccines and countless prescriptions all before we even start school.

I would bet that 95% of those massive people lurching around unhappily are diabetic or pre-diabetic. That is not magically caused by feminism, directly or indirectly.

There is far too much salt in processed food. People trust the food companies not to feed them with food that is bad for them, and the manufacturers betray this trust.

Also, one reason people used to be thinner was that meal times were fixed times with a set amount on the plate and there was no browsing all day long.

Most children did not have access to chocolates and crisps all day long as they were more expensive relative to the average family’s spending power. And between meals children were active, whereas now they are sitting down either with an electronic device, or watching anti-white propaganda on TV.

Women were more healthy as housework, including cooking, was physical work, and did not involve spraying loads of chemicals around all day in houses where all draughts have been sealed off so the chemicals cannot escape.

Well, you speak the truth about overall lifestyle of the long-gone past. We almost never ate between meals.

But about your last paragraph, the women of my mum’s generation may have been less fat and more fit than today for the reasons you state – but they were in bad shape psychologically. They were virtually all taking prescription “nerve pills”. Even unto old age and death. My mother told me this. We knew some who were going for shock treatments, the medicine of choice in those days. They felt they just could not handle stress or were talked into “easy” solutions. Probably Reason #2. Here, take this little blue pill and All’s Well. And indeed it was, for the next 40 years.

Amen…Dr Jones still thinks it’s all Protestants, Catholics, Jews…but I believe he’s coming around to race reality…in any case he’s an intellectual treasure as you say, a giant in my opinion…honest, acute, bold, prolific…wish we could clone him

It’s okay to talk about racial differences, particularly if it can be shown that concern for one’s cohort is “hard-wired” — though that is surely not the case where whites are concerned. But wishing for white people to care about other white people just because they are white is perverse. The attacks on white people that rightly infuriate us are mainly attacks on the rights of white people and the culture that white Christians have created. Is Brother Nathaniel an enemy and Bill Clinton a friend? Most white people are rightly willing to cut black people and Latinos some slack, whether or not they have lower IQs. This kindness is consistent with unwillingness to allow whites to be demographically marginalized, which would be objectionable on cultural grounds apart from any genetic issues. The nationalist movement expects to convince the white public to view every other ethnicity as an enemy. Not even Hitler took that view, accepting support from Bosnian Muslims who actually fielded a division of the Waffen SS, and middle-eastern Musliims. Though the current antipathy of Muslims is obviously a response to a Zionist campaign to vilify Islam and invade and “westernize” every Muslim country, nationalists persist in gratuitous Muslim-bashing as if they were taking orders from Bill Kristol and David Horowitz. We could learn a lot from the Muslims about how to stand up to people who attack your sacred traditions. Our American Christian response is to reach for another beer and dial up another football game.

The National Felon League is owned by the perverts that
print currency, the “jewish” media/ TALMUDVISION,
and the crack whore “CONGRESS” that supports the –
Zionist Mass Murderers in Palestine…
for filthy lucre… {John 8:44} !

Antiloser: “if it can be shown that concern for one’s cohort is “hard-wired” — though that is surely not the case where whites are concerned”

Ironically, this is an example of a race difference – whites are less racist and it is in the genes. And this makes them vulnerable to their own enemy within telling them to stop being racist, even though they are not so. So they end up obeying their left (and allies) and inviting over racist races from backward countries.

In my opinion the weakness of the nationalist right is that in their desire to support their own race they lump the whole white race together, when in fact it would be more useful to split the white race into two – lefty whites who have bad genes (not lefties who are just herd-followers where it is not true leftism in their genes) and the rest.

These bad genes in the true lefty make them hate their own race and want to bring their own race down for having the characteristic of being better/superior. It is this they cannot stand. It is possible that in the past this genetic tendency of hatred of the better led to an advantage, if you consider human races as having a gene pool in which different gene types struggled to become more numerous. Productive gene types (makers) and non-productive gene types (takers – thieves those who want to get stuff by taking it from others) Ie more like ants, where there are different types, than dogs, where they are all the same. With ants you have soldiers and workers (this is a loose analogy as they are switching on different genes and they both actually have the same set of genes like human males and females do), whereas with wild dogs you end up with a single multi-purpose clone-like animal, ie the ideal dog. Selection makes dogs all end up the same. With humans, there is selection to keep us different, not selection to make us all the same. In the end with humans there is an equilibrium between takers and makers, and this is not present in packs of wild dogs, where selection ends up making them all into the ‘ideal dog’. With humans natural selection selects for distinct types. As the takers (the parasite humans) get smaller and smaller in proportion, the advantage of being a rapist and pillager increases, as they can just roam around in gangs attacking the peaceful and co-operative types toiling away. So there is no way for populations in the past to get rid of these bad taker (socialist) genes. This resulting equilibrium between takers and makers within a single species (humans) can be compared with the relationship between host and parasite in different species. In both cases natural selection ends up working towards an equilibrium, ie it preserves both types. Nat sele does not eliminate the parasite when two species are involved, and it does not eliminate the bad human genes for being an internal within-species parasite. In the land of the honest and trusting, the deceitful and violent, those who can rape and murder and then sleep peacefully at night, they can find they can easily spread their genes. This is how equilibriums work. So nat sele keeps the equilibrium between the different types of humans. Nat sele preserves the bad genes. Suppose the bad taker/socialist/hater of the better (it is all the same) genes in humans end up at 15% of the population. What we see today is that democracy and wealth has allowed this 15% to take over. They obey their genes, and their genes tell them to hate the better, so they hate their own race. The fact that this might kill off the host does not make any difference, as they obey their genes, not some logical plan.

A cat does not say ‘I will stop fighting other cats as that is left over from my prehistoric wild past and now causes me harm’. And a socialist does not say ‘I will stop hating the better as that is left over from the past and will now cause me and my children harm once society is destroyed’.

If only there were some way to lure the left away from the main group into one part of the country.

By focusing on the Jews for their (major) role in making us multiracial, it draws attention away from this other group – the white enemy within left, who feel an inner hostility to the white races just as much as hostile Jews do.

As you say, how can you ever side with your own lefties who are hell bent on destroying white civilisation just because they are white.

The question is, if every Jew left the West and went to Israel, would the West continue on its path to suicide without their influence or not?

Who would want to live in an all-white society? I grew up in the north but attended a southern university in the 60s. I was surprised to find that the nearly all white student body listened to black music exclusively. They had no interest in white hippie music. The only people who listened to white music were the transplanted Yankees like myself, especially commies! Blacks, for their part, have internalized Christianity, the white man’s religion. Southern whites and blacks have always gotten along well, all things considered, while northern liberals praise blacks while avoiding their company. To a white liberal, the black is a weapon to use against the gentile, a vote for the party of abortion, atheism, gun-grabbing, thought-reform, spying, and perversity. Blacks support none of those things but they aren’t going to vote for a party that wants to ignore them or take away the benefits that after 50 years of counter-culture ethics and Great Society programs they need more than before. Let’s give them some incentive to vote for a party that values them without valuing the liberal mandarins’ plan for a collectivist and un-Christian tomorrow.

I would (or at least 90% white). Thus I recently fled the hell of “diversity” in SoCal and moved to the panhandle of Idaho, where it’s well over 90% white. And many others are doing the same. Idaho is one of the fasting growing states in the country. Many are waking up to the hard reality that there’s nothing more rational than “white flight.”

As for blacks, any internalization of Christianity in them basically seems to be gone. For example, get a load of the major findings listed here:

Yep, me too. I recently left Chicago after living there several decades, resettling in the rural Southwest. The atmosphere here is totally different. It’s hard to put into words, but it reminds me of my childhood hometown in the Sierra Nevadas. Yes, Chicago offered cultural opportunities unavailable here, and exotic resaurants. But there was widespread tension and distrust, crimes both serious and petty were taken for granted, and of course the city, county and state were entirely Democrat-run and corrupt. (Yes, the two are intimately related.) People here, on the other hand, are friendly, trusting and reliable. There’s much to be said for homogeneity!

Yankee, you couldn’t pay an average southerner to listen to black music and I hope you take as many jesus loving negros as you want up north. They would not be missed. I can’t see them voting for you, but they do drive down the price of property.

White trash are invincibly dumb. Their supposed dramatic Faustian nature is just a polite way to say

During great part of your beautyfool history you have been “guided” by pathetic pseudo to proto philosophy, from too immoral or INSENSITIVE to the most stupid and ridiculous imported fake tales as so called (((christianism)))… Never been capable to reach true wisdom. Pathetic, fool, miserable piece of $hit..

And indeed you invaded, destroyed, and started to colonize all other lands with your stupidities well helped by your technology, created to serve your insanities, true insanities…

Both sides

Mentally idiotic on the left
And
Vipers insensitive primitive on the right

It’s easier to amateur parasites as Jews find a way to break your extremely corrupted and intellectually dumb systems…

“It’s easier to amateur parasites as Jews find a way to break your extremely corrupted and intellectually dumb systems…”
Dumb systems? The Jews controlled the African slave industry. The first Jew elected to the U.S. senate, Judah P. Benjamin, owner of 180 slaves & plantation in La., resigned to serve as Secretary of War for the Confederacy. He was merely protecting Jewish investments. Why no Spielberg movie about the first Jew elected to the U.S. senate? Today Africa leads the world in enslaving their own people. White people ended the system of slavery. As recently as 2010, Israel was listed as on par with 3rd world nations in human sex trafficking and human enslavement. Those figures are easily obtained. Tel Aviv is now considered the “most gay friendly city in the world”. Israel has already deported 10,000 Africans, and has informed 40,000 remaining Africans they must deport to Africa or face “indefinite detention”. While they have every right to do so, most Jews wholeheartedly support massive immigration of non-whites into Western nations. All of these assertions are easily verified. While you just offer insults which you must think appear poetic. grandiose thinking is a symptom of mental illness. In an article recently published in the most prestigious scientific journal, Nature, Israeli researchers announced the discovery of a genetic marker for major psychiatric disorders with high heritability like schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorders, manic depression and bipolar disorder linked in a genome-wide association in the Ashkenazi Jewish population, in lay language a mutated gene that makes Ashkenazi Jews 40% more likely to develop these severe psychiatric disorders than non-Jews. This is especially poignant information. The researchers discovered this info, due to the large number of “wrongful birth” lawsuits filed by Jews against their obstetricians, over so many of their infants being born with genetic defects inherent in Jew’s DNA. All that inbreeding within a small population over millennia, has bad results. But you are so very special….indeed.
What have Jews created, originated, or positively expanded?
Everything beautiful and worthwhile was created by Caucasians.
The Jews only copy or attempt to subvert, especially if money is to be made. For instance, fine art, music, and philosophy Observe the rapid decline in all 3, since Jews took over these arenas.
Einstein was a fraud who lifted the work from his fellow physicists and claimed the work as his own. This assertion has been thoroughly researched and recorded. But how many people even know the name of the greatest true genius of the 20th century, Nickolas Tesla? Oh! I forgot the psychopathic Oppenheimer did head the program which delivered the atomic bomb and the insuing use of nuclear radiation. Wow! Fukushima! Bombing the hell out of a civilian population! The Jews give each other awards, so as to bump up their collective egos. See Goy, we really are chosen, we are so superior.
“Mentally idiotic on the left
And
Vipers insensitive primitive on the right”
You are still attempting to manipulate the dialogue. Ad hominem instead of facts. Many of us are now aware of Saul Alinksky attempts at domination, as well as the divide & conquer strategies. We have studied the Trivium, and the fallacies of logic, a system of logic created by our white ancestors from ancient Greece. What have Jews provided? The Talmud. Let’s see…..Athens…..or Jerusalem…..

I noticed the recent discovery of the mutated gene that makes Ashkenazi Jews 40% more likely to develop severe psychiatric disorders than non-Jews, which appeared in the prestigious Nature science journal, did not include the mental disease of psychopathy.
From my own research I have discovered that science is now leaning toward the conviction that psychopathy can be genetic as well as caused by severe & prolonged abuse. Genetic psychopathy is known as primary psychopathy. Psychopathy caused by severe abuse is known as secondary.
Brain scans of suspected genetic psychopaths showed the brains of psychopaths did not light up when given specific stimuli.
The region of the brain that monitors the human conscience is known as the amygdala. It is almond shaped and sits above the lower triune brain, or what some scientists refer to as the R-Complex or Reptile brain. Tremendous amounts of money are being funneled into artificial intelligence development. Obama allocated 100 million dollars for a “brain mapping” project, supposedly to find cures for autism, alzheimers, and epilepsy.
There was no mention of mapping the mental disease which might very well bring an end to our species, genetic psychopathy. Psychopaths understand full well they are different than normal humans. Those on the top of the pyramid seek out psychopaths who are willing to carry out their agendas. We need reliable DNA testing to identify genetic psychopathy. They are the demons and or aliens. But humans seem to prefer something more supernatural or otherworldly in which to blame evil.

I hit the above link and read the story. Again — WOW! That’s a REALLY new explanation of Jewish behavior. Circumcision induces kind of “inhuman” behavior? I really hope others will chime in, though I’m worried that few people are going to be reading these comments at this stage.

In no way am I saying I endorse this circumcision theory (I barely understand it) but it’s just so uncanny because only two days ago I read a related description. Let me explain.

A number of years ago I can across film analyst Jay Dyer when he appeared from time to time on Red Ice Radio. I confess things like the occult and Masonry still make no sense to me, but I enjoyed the way Dyer would unpack various films. He has a good speaking voice, too.

I began reading Dyer’s book “Esoterica Hollywood: Sex, Cults and Symbols in Film” (2016) last month, and yesterday I happened to read Chapter 3, “Kubrick Bears the Light — The Shining (1980).” It’s been many years since I’ve seen The Shining, but I remembered enough to know that what Dyer was getting at was new to me, namely the inner story of intergenerational abuse (possibly sexual).

Recall that Jack Nicholson plays failed writer Jack Torrance, his wife is Wendy and Danny their young son. Dyer first claims that there are symbols to show that Wendy sexually abuses her son because they are watching “the 1971 ‘Summer of ’42’, a reverse Lolita-style tale of an older woman who seduces a young boy.” (Dyer shows Danny wearing a football shirt with the number 42 on it.)

Earlier Dyer had shown a still of the scene where Jack was either reading a copy of Playgirl at the Overlook Hotel or was just sitting next to it. Dyer also shows us a larger photo of the cover of this issue, and one of the featured stories is “INCEST: Why Parents Sleep With Their Children.”

Now Dyer begins to offer his (to me) unique explanation: “In my estimation, it’s definitely the case that generational bloodline families will traumatize their offspring, often do [sic] raise them in the occult and will, in a sense, ‘program’ them.”

He soon continues, “Yet, there _are_ elite Satanic psychopaths, and they do promulgate psychopathy with their progeny.” Later, he argues that The Shining is, among other things, an exploration of “the satanic elite that rule the West, as the theme of pedophiliac generational bloodlines parasitically manipulate the underclass through the false promise of worldly prosperity.”

Now here’s one part that really baffles me. Dyer uses a film expert named Rob Ager to suggest a homoerotic element to the film as well. Unfortunately, the beginning of the Ager quote strikes me as the same kind of silly wordplay that is far too common in books about film. Ager begins: “Bear suit . . . bare bottom. Is this a pun?”

Ager then refers to the two stuffed bears at the hotel as representative of fellatio (and something about “furry bears,” which I don’t understand because I’m so pure 🙂

Ager then ask if the one bear, “which represented Jack, and the fellatio bear, are we to conclude that Wendy actually sees Jack giving fellatio instead of Danny? Absolutely. As it turns out, the abuse suffered by Danny is something that has been passed down through the generations. Abused children grow up to become abusers and repeat the sins of their parents in a continuous cycle.”

I have no recollection of anything about bears in the film, let alone a fellatio scene, so I’ll leave it to other to fill that out (if it isn’t just a bunch of scholarly crap).

Still, Dyer does show that Kubrick in many films again and again visits the idea that “This control structure operates through sex magick and generational traumatization.

So where are we?

First, Dyer needs serious help in writing coherent English sentences. Time and again his syntax is simply wrong. It’s like reading the prose of a non-native speaker.

Second, in this entire book, Dyer can’t find any reason to write even one thing about Jews. I can’t remember his previous Red Ice Radio appearances, but my guess is that I liked him because he and Henrik talked openly about Jews in Hollywood. It really bothers me now that people who used to discuss the JQ now back away from it — and nowhere is Jewish identity more important than in the topics Dyer discusses in the book.

We all know that Kubrick was Jewish. Was he revealing secrets about Jewish rituals and power? I don’t claim to know but I sure am curious. Dyer fails us here.

And could there be any link between what Dyer is claiming about intergenerational abuse and the circumcision theory? I am assuredly not qualified to discuss this, but it sure is fascinating. I confess it all struck me as being as fantastic as what I read in my first David Icke book. Since we’re not claiming any of this is fact, I don’t think it’s a bad idea to discuss this more.

Jones accepts that blacks were radicalized into a revolutionary avant-garde within the USA. Furthermore, he notes that the failure of African economics has its routes in usury and the inability to understand the work ethic. The latter’s purest form exists among the Benedictines. A tradition which scarcely exists within the continent.

…the failure of African economics has its routes in usury and the inability to understand the work ethic.

Did Jones say that? The first point, I do not know about. The second is probably true, but has nothing to do with African “understanding.” It’s nature. Does a tiger understand a deer?

However that is, there is no pure “black African” economics. At least in the Western sense of the word. A pure black Wakandan economy would consist of barter and theft. Or theft and barter.

After the white man came, a lot of the barter and theft evolved into payoffs and bribes. The latter via the global corporate capitalist schema, plus the usual CIA money and weapons funneling jungle operations.

It worked pretty well, because there was plenty of opportunity for a few blacks at the top of the Nubian Interdimensional Pyramid to make a lot of money. As long as they could stay alive. Not always an easy thing to do given the balancing act they had to perform: first, in appeasing their CIA handlers; and, second, in keeping their fellow tribal brothers from murdering them.

Later, a few enterprising (some might say, “uppity”) Africans threw the white man out. In those places things quickly degenerated back into barter and theft; or theft and barter. Plus a lot of black on black killing due to confiscated CIA provided guns. Much more killing than was usual.

Once blacks reverted to their natural economic state, whatever infrastructure was left from the white man became ruined. No surprises here. In order for the average cat to make $, poaching became rampant. It was a tough time to be an elephant in Africa.

Once Chinese arrived on the scene with their brand of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, things switched back to a more civilized theft and barter system, along with an Oriental form of the hitherto Western capitalist-CIA bribe and payoff scheme. But with a big difference. Chinese had no illusions about curing AIDS in Africa, looking for the “African Einstein”, lobbying for women and/or homosexual rights, or “bringing democracy” to the villages. Tribal Africans love them for that, but probably hate them for other things.

Whether Africans will get uppity once again, and throw the Chinese out, is anyone’s guess. Africa is a savage land, and savagery rules the day. But some things never change: because of Chinese folk medicine demands, it remains a tough time to be an elephant (or rhino) in Africa. The animals are not too happy about that.

The next chapter is Arabs in Africa… more of the same old same old. Do Arabs like elephants and rhinos?

Jones accepts that blacks were radicalized into a revolutionary avant-garde within the USA.

One of these days when those using the Black population no longer need them, and whatever identity and community they had has largely been wrecked, things will be different regarding Blacks. On that day the people whom used to buy, sell, and own them, ie powerful elements of the Anglo-Saxon and Jewish elite of the north-east, will utilizing the corporate mass media deliberately rile them up about something stupid, as much of it in the past has been, and get them to start rioting and looting. The order will be given to police authorities, national guard, etc, to not ‘roll over’ as in previous times but to instead ‘open up’ on them with main force, including with things like 50 cals. And just to reinforce the point, in case the Black community didn’t get it the first time, not too long after the first instance they’ll deliberately rile them up once more, and when the rioting and looting starts open up with main force again.

And those doing the manipulating we’ll ‘get off’ on this just as they have with the rest of it.

In a lot of ways I can’t really see that the Black population of the US ever really was freed, going straight from chattel slavery into wage slavery as they did in 1865, and even now some still remain. If one counts their manipulation in ways ultimately not in theirs or others interest as a type of slavery then they still remain largely enslaved.

By and large the White community of the US in that light is in many ways not too much better off than the Blacks.

I’d love to read his book, “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit”, but given its price on Amazon.co.uk (£68 and upwards, from a few sellers whose customer ratings don’t exactly inspire confidence) it looks as if I’ll have to do without. That is, unless someone can direct me to a more affordable copy. Any suggestions?

Further to the above, I’ve now found the publisher’s (Fidelity Press) website (www.culturewars.com), but unfortunately I’m no further forward. According to current exchange rates, a copy of the book will cost me about £34.60 if I order it directly from them, which is an affordable sum, but the shipping cost to Great Britain will be an additional, colossal, £51.90 – a total cost of about £86.50, which is unacceptable. Never mind (((them)) not wanting us to read it, to all intents and purposes the publishers aren’t all that keen on the idea either.

I see that you can buy it directly from E. Michael Jones to be shipped internationally for $72 = £51.80 total. I suspect you might have confused the total price with the shipping price in what you’ve stated here.

BTW, I notice that Amazon is offering $20.27 to anyone who trades this in to them. I figure I’ll do that. I’ll never have need of this book again. It’s in perfect condition – no writing in it, no creases, …etc. It has been read by me though and so it isn’t in a never-opened condition. According to the website “Parcel Monkey” it’d cost me as low as $14.31 to ship it to the UK. If you’d like to buy the book from me for $20.27 plus shipping, I’d gladly send it to you. You could send me a pre-paid shipping box or something and ship it however you’d like.

Or maybe arrange a pay-for-the-shipping on receipt deal or something. I’ll even wait until you receive it for you to pay me the $20.27. I figure you’ll be good on your word – it’s only $20, I doubt you’d be a cheat about it. And it’s make me feel good to have helped you out.

As a Catholic, I find his childhood hatred of American wasps a bit much. He is not so much an advocate of Catholicism as of American working-class urban white consciousness, which to a deep suburban yuppie scum like me (to use his categories) leaves me cold . His attacks on the upper middle classes is unnecessary; he really lets you know he hates anyone who owns a sports car. I enjoy his books immensely, his articles less so, and his interviews hardly at all.

Sebastian, if you drive an X1/9, then you are driving an Italian car. Italy happens to be where the main Catholic Headquarters are located. And that place is staffed with plenty of Italians. Hell, even the Pope drove a Fiat Campagnola for a whlie.

So Jones probably doesn’t “hate” you for driving an Italian car. He might not love you for it, but I’m sure your mechanic does, given the propensity for Italian cars to break down. And that will make up for any love lost from Jones.

PS: did Jones really say he didn’t like sports car owners? Why would he say something like that?

Thanks, Blake and Franklin, for helping me out with the book problem. If it’s available to read online, free of charge, then I’ll try that first. Thanks for your offer though, Blake, and for setting me right about the shipping cost. I used to buy a lot of secondhand books from the States via the Abebooks website, but a few years ago postage rates from the US to Britain rose so steeply that I’ve had to stop doing so. Postage rates that are multiples of the price of the book itself have become commonplace, which I why I (apparently mistakenly) thought the Culture Wars charge was so high. I’ve never been able to understand why the USPS decided to clamp down so hard on the book trade between the USA and Britain. How can they profit by jacking-up postal charges to such a level that I can no longer buy books from America? Or is there a motive other than profit behind the move?

Great Article. I also like the youtube video of Jones. Just a couple disagreements or maybe questions about the video.

1) Capitalism? I am all for prison terms for financial fraud. I was completely sickened by what happened in 2008 with Goldman Sachs. But to say that all exchange on the free market is evil, which is how I see capitalism, is crazy. Also, Jones’s idea that interest is evil is also crazy. So, I was evil when before 2008, I bought CDs at my bank for 5%? This was good money. And I earned it working as an engineer and I lived frugally and I invested it. So what. What is evil is the QE that began in 2008 which took away the right of ordinary middle class people to earn decent money on what they earned.

2) Now Jones is at the point 2 hours into the show where he is criticizing Pat Buchanan for saying “we white guys have to stay together”. Pat is only the most mild of White Identitarians.

3) However, I must take my hat off to Jones. He is extremely well read and I have learned a lot from this video.

“It is difficult to see how an ideology based on a universalistic logos can be used to motivate Whites against the non-White invasion of the West.”

If you consider logos, as Jones does, as not just faith in the gospel but God’s order, then it does work. Logos, in the case of race/white genocide, would be a matter of justice and love for neighbor.

Justice in the sense of rectifying/reversing what amounts to the weaponization of immigration policy against whites since 1965, which, had the people been fully informed of what has happening & what the true aims were they never would have stood for. So, it can span from stopping immigration altogether to imposing pre-1965 demographics to ethnostate (if original US naturalization policy is used as the baseline).

Love for neighbor means doing what’s best for your fellow man which is what fighting against white genocide amounts to. Further on that line means considering cultural/racial realities best suited to the respective races prospering. Pro-white/anti white genocide doesn’t mean anti-black as the (((media))) would have people believe.